Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desktop Linux


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Whatever the hell User:Dsimics said, yeah, that's the consensus, do that.. v/r - TP 17:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Desktop Linux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete for being WP:POVFORK. Title and lead section of the article has no connection to its contents which is a bad fork of desktop environment, shell (computing) and WIMP (computing) articles and certainly not about Linux. The core of the article is an unreferenced, unexplained questionable WP:OR sentence in the lead: "The term Desktop Linux refers to all the software components that build a graphical user interface, that is designed for usage with a desktop computer and also devices, that offer identical human interface devices, such as Laptops. " First, there is no mention of "Linux" in the underlined section. Second, graphical user interface is an aspect of computer software; it does not consist of software itself. Edits by some users like User:ScotXW has shown that they thought that perhaps "build" means "design and develop" and therefore this article is about software development. (I can't possibly say they are wrong because this jumble of text that asserts the title of "article" itself has no idea.) Third, the reset of the article is barely connected to this core sentence. It is from a flawed point of view that no other operating system other than Linux superfamily exist.

I was tempted to nominate this article for deletion under CSD:G1 but obviously the word "Linux" in the title is bound to attract Linux fans to say "keep" indiscriminately. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article Linux on the desktop is outsourced of the article Linux range of use (the equivalent being de:Linux-Einsatzbereiche), which is outsourced of the article Linux.
 * 1. There is no one Linux operating system, but there is an abundance of Linux kernel-based operating systems. The only software component that all of this OSes have in common is the Linux kernel. The rest of the operating system (even the C standard library!) can differ.
 * 2. The difference of the OSes are either due to the hardware type (embedded computer with only 32MiB of main memory, MMU-less CPU, supercomputer, exotic instruction set, etc.) or due to the Human interface device, i.e. a touchscreen-based UI differs from one for pointing device and computer keyboard.
 * There articles were IMO inaptly named, and partly miserably written. I just begun changing this, and BAM, useless appears with "critique wannabe". How come, miserably written articles don't bother you? Are you a Linux-hater? Did Linux hurt your feelings?
 * Are there any technical questions or some comprehension problems regarding the scope or content of the mentioned article?


 * I, on the other hand, am very tempted to delve into the Chaos Communication Congress-Tschunk-matter. Was that another glorious session? Did the Brain strike again against the enemies of the Wikipedia? ScotXW (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The current Desktop Linux article is not that great, but it's much better as-is than not having it. In other words, there's definitely a lot more room for further improvements, but there's no reasonable backing to the proposal for deleting the article.  It's not that great for sure, and there are many more things that should be also described or at least mentioned (like   or  ) for a much better big picture &mdash; but once again, it's still good as-is.  Why should we delete it, when it can be improved?  Should a headache be cured with some painkillers, or with an axe? :) -- Dsimic (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just saw that User:Codename Lisa is a member of the WikiProject Microsoft... Are there any further doubts regarding as of why he/she isn't so fond of a Linux-related article?  And particularly the article clashing with the Microsoft's holy grail &mdash; the desktop. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Did you know that Codename Lisa is the codename for version 12 of Linux Mint? Obviously not. I am Linux and this article is not related to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello there! I'm apologizing for that, wasn't aware of the relation to Linux Mint, as I'm not using that distribution.  Why is then your Wikipedia user page stating you're a member of the WikiProject Microsoft?  Those two aren't mixing that well. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. WikiProject Microsoft is about Wikipedia and its neutrality pillars, not Microsoft. They want someone who can write from a neutral point of view, not a Microsoft fanboy. I managed to make thing more neutral. For instance the Start menu article now acknowledges that the menu is not just a thing of Windows but is also present on other operating systems. Or, we managed to prevent exaggeration of the importance of Windows 8.1. But I digress. This article does something like what Microsoft does: Privatization of contents. It shouldn't be so: Its contents should be merged with other articles like Shell (computing), desktop environment, WIMP (computing), etc. Neutrally mentioning design, development and implementation tenets, IMHO, is the way to go. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a very good explanation, it all makes sense! I totally agree that neutrality is the key everywhere, and especially here on Wikipedia.  If we don't stay neutral, then the whole thing turns into a huge blog, what's not the point.  For example, I'll always say that KDE 4 was a miss and is a total disaster (too complex, pushed out prematurely and thus very buggy), as well as Windows 8 is a disaster (unjustified / not needed paradigm shift).
 * I'll have another look into the Linux desktop environments article, and come back with a detailed proposal. I've already renamed the article, as that way it has a potential to present its own matter, and that's what it should've contained from the beginning and from a neutral point of view &mdash; if you agree.
 * -- Dsimic (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Now that the article has been renamed, I'd like to ask about the scope of Linux desktop environments.  What is this article going to be about, and how is it going to avoid extensive overlap with Desktop environment?  Also, if it's going to be about KDE, GNOME, etc, then it's going to run into severe problems, because those are not Linux exclusive.  They're also used in other operating systems, such as BSD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh, this article looks like a bigger mess the more I'm looking into it. :( So far, the only reasonable thing appropriate for Linux desktop environments would be some kind of a "road signs cluster" article, providing a big picture overview &mdash; with links to KDE, GNOME etc. articles.  It's already there within the article, but it requires some serious trimming.
 * But then again, do we need such an article? Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I went through the same thought process. Linux is fairly standardized (POSIX, X11, Mesa 3D, OpenGL, etc), so there isn't all that much unique to Linux that we need to cover.  It's not like Apple or Microsoft, where there's all sorts of proprietary technologies that need their own articles.  We've already got History of Linux, Criticism of desktop Linux, and Desktop environment.  We could probably fit everything else under Linux.  I thought about volunteering to rewrite this article, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like a pointless effort.  One main article to tie up all these concepts might work, but it would probably have to be less specific than this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, we're having duplicated content around, what's quite confusing to anyone reading the articles, and at the same time tough for later maintenance and updating.
 * In a few words, how about doing something like this:
 * heading section content from the Linux desktop environments article becomes incorporated into the Linux section (better said, the bits not already covered in that section of the Linux article)
 * we already have various desktop screenshots in the same Linux section, so those might be moved into the Desktop environment article as well
 * Desktop environment article becomes the "Main article" for Linux section.
 * Linux desktop environments article would be really an overkill in that scenario.
 * Sounds like a plan? Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * This looks a good plan. We can even negotiate details live. Do you want me to withdraw this nomination or do you prefer to leave it on for a while to attract more consensus?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If you agree, I'd leave the nomination tag so more people can see it and possibly contribute more ideas and comments.  After we go through a few more days discussing and ironing it out, I can go ahead (or somebody else) and move the stuff as described above &mdash; or according to our final plan, of course.
 * Also, nomination tag should stay as the Linux desktop environments article is going to be deleted in the end, after its content is moved around &mdash; if everyone agrees.
 * As always, comments are more than welcome. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This sounds good to me, but I'm not even sure we need a "main article" for Linux. That's a debate for Talk:Linux, though.  Some of these concepts could probably be expanded on in the appropriate articles, such as Operating system and Desktop environment, as long as it doesn't become too technical or complex. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Well, it can be at least a "See also" article. :)
 * Also, please have a look at Talk:Linux, where ScotXW is proposing quite a redo of the Linux-related articles structure. That's something interesting and worth discussing over it.
 * -- Dsimic (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please no more "... it is Unix-like"-sentences, this term is totally useless, to put it kindly. In the article Linux on the desktop I want to learn something about the middleware, i.e. all the stuff between the Linux kernel and the GNOME Shell. How does it work? Why would I want such an operating system on my home desktop, why wouldn't I? Why would I want it in the office? Should we have rather donated money to Mesa 3D then to Mozilla? If there is an extra article named Controversy over GNOME 3, how can there not be an article Linux on the desktop? ScotXW (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm, that's a good point, but can't we have that described within the Desktop environment article? From another perspective, what should we eventually do with the Desktop environment article?
 * Also, if we go with Linux on the desktop article, then a lot of "it's GNU on the desktop, not Linux" people are going to hit us hard. And they're quite right, as it's the KDE, GNOME or whatever on the desktop, and you can also have that with FreeBSD or even through Cygwin or natively on Windows.
 * Just as a note, only the technically inclined people care about such stuff. I do care about what's under the hood, but nobody is going to choose Linux just because of its shiny exhaust manifolds, so to speak. :)  Such "office workers" people just want to click and print a document, they don't care or know even what ink-jet technology in fact is &mdash; for example.
 * Please don't get me wrong... I do want and love tech stuff all around, but we should keep in mind that we're going to lure nobody into Linux just because we expose all of the gears.
 * Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides agreeing with what Dsimic has said above, I would point out that articles on Wikipedia must satisfy notability and verifiability issues; furthermore, advocacy and personal opinion are forbidden. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I know it's a bit of pain to have everything backed with references, even when you know first hand something is true, but that's what an encyclopedia in fact is &mdash; a large sum of the facts extracted out of good references.  We're summing up research work and proven facts here, instead of writing essays. -- Dsimic (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just checking, how are we standing from the point of reaching a consensus? Please comment. -- Dsimic (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I pity the admin who has to make sense of this long discussion. Here's what I favor:


 * Merge the useful, sourced elements of this article into Desktop environment and Linux, and redirect to Linux. I may assist in this if someone leaves a note on my talk page.  Note: if content is to be merged, we shouldn't delete this article, per WP:MAD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)



In a few words, this is what's been pretty much concluded so far, as a brief summary of the discussion above:


 * 1) content from the Linux desktop environments article (primarily its lead section) becomes incorporated / merged into the Linux section (better said, the few bits not already covered in that section of the Linux article);
 * 2) there are already various desktop screenshots in Linux section, so those might be moved into the Desktop environment article as well;
 * 3) Desktop environment article becomes a "See also" article for the Linux section;
 * 4) Linux desktop environments article would become an overkill in this scenario, so the final step would be turning it into a redirect to the Desktop environment article.

Sounds like a plan? Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds about a nice course of action. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge'—Now this is how consensus should be reached. Great job to  and  to reach this.  I think your proposal makes a lot of sense, and I applaud you for making the effort to implement it.  I'm mainly just !voting so that the closing admin can easily see what's going on here; you guys have done all the heavy lifting.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! We're just trying to be productive members of the Wikipedia community. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.